OASIS Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) TC

receiveq(n) is at position 2(n-1)+1. Same error for transmitq(n) and controlq. VIRTIO-161 Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> --- content.tex 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex index d8bde3a..2319729 100644 --- a/content.tex +++ b/content.tex @@ -3064,9 +3064,9 @@ features. item[0] receiveq1 item[1] transmitq1 item[ldots] -item[2N] receiveqN -item[2N+1] transmitqN -item[2N+2] controlq +item[2(N-1)] receiveqN +item[2(N-1)+1] transmitqN +item[2(N-1)+2] controlq end{description} N=1 if VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not negotiated, otherwise N is set by -- 2.13.0

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 01:51:29PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> receiveq(n) is at position 2(n-1)+1. Same error for transmitq(n)
> and controlq.
>
> VIRTIO-161
>
> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> ---
> content.tex | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> index d8bde3a..2319729 100644
> --- a/content.tex
> +++ b/content.tex
> @@ -3064,9 +3064,9 @@ features.
> \item[0] receiveq1
> \item[1] transmitq1
> \item[\ldots]
> -\item[2N] receiveqN
> -\item[2N+1] transmitqN
> -\item[2N+2] controlq
> +\item[2(N-1)] receiveqN
> +\item[2(N-1)+1] transmitqN
> +\item[2(N-1)+2] controlq

There is still only one controlq overall. Therefore I suggest:

\item[2N] controlq

This seems clearer to me since "\item[2(N-1)+2] controlq" makes it look
like the controlq is repeated along with rx and tx queues.

Stefan

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 01:51:29PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > receiveq(n) is at position 2(n-1)+1. Same error for transmitq(n) > and controlq. > > VIRTIO-161 > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> > --- > content.tex 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex > index d8bde3a..2319729 100644 > --- a/content.tex > +++ b/content.tex > @@ -3064,9 +3064,9 @@ features. > item[0] receiveq1 > item[1] transmitq1 > item[ldots] > -item[2N] receiveqN > -item[2N+1] transmitqN > -item[2N+2] controlq > +item[2(N-1)] receiveqN > +item[2(N-1)+1] transmitqN > +item[2(N-1)+2] controlq There is still only one controlq overall. Therefore I suggest: item[2N] controlq This seems clearer to me since "item[2(N-1)+2] controlq" makes it look like the controlq is repeated along with rx and tx queues. Stefan Attachment: signature.asc Description: PGP signature

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:35:20 +0100
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 01:51:29PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > receiveq(n) is at position 2(n-1)+1. Same error for transmitq(n)
> > and controlq.
> >
> > VIRTIO-161
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > content.tex | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > index d8bde3a..2319729 100644
> > --- a/content.tex
> > +++ b/content.tex
> > @@ -3064,9 +3064,9 @@ features.
> > \item[0] receiveq1
> > \item[1] transmitq1
> > \item[\ldots]
> > -\item[2N] receiveqN
> > -\item[2N+1] transmitqN
> > -\item[2N+2] controlq
> > +\item[2(N-1)] receiveqN
> > +\item[2(N-1)+1] transmitqN
> > +\item[2(N-1)+2] controlq
>
> There is still only one controlq overall. Therefore I suggest:
>
> \item[2N] controlq
>
> This seems clearer to me since "\item[2(N-1)+2] controlq" makes it look
> like the controlq is repeated along with rx and tx queues.

Indeed, that is easier to parse. Will update.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:35:20 +0100 Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 01:51:29PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > receiveq(n) is at position 2(n-1)+1. Same error for transmitq(n) > > and controlq. > > > > VIRTIO-161 > > > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> > > --- > > content.tex 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex > > index d8bde3a..2319729 100644 > > --- a/content.tex > > +++ b/content.tex > > @@ -3064,9 +3064,9 @@ features. > > item[0] receiveq1 > > item[1] transmitq1 > > item[ldots] > > -item[2N] receiveqN > > -item[2N+1] transmitqN > > -item[2N+2] controlq > > +item[2(N-1)] receiveqN > > +item[2(N-1)+1] transmitqN > > +item[2(N-1)+2] controlq > > There is still only one controlq overall. Therefore I suggest: > > item[2N] controlq > > This seems clearer to me since "item[2(N-1)+2] controlq" makes it look > like the controlq is repeated along with rx and tx queues. Indeed, that is easier to parse. Will update.